Notes: Grama's (mom side) gf Sweedish, Larsen gm French ,DeCair
Grama's (dad side) gf Irish, Langworthy gm German, Mapletoff Grama’s great grandfaterh- 1640 (Langworthy) -came from England
-then to NY
-moved throught Penn.
-slowly to MI
Great Grama Ruth’s mom (DeCair married Larsen)- French (to Canada to Big Rapids)
-about end of 17th Century (1680’s ish)
-to MI in 1850
Great Grama Ruth’s dad (Larsen)- Denmark in 1800’s
-Denmark to NY then MI
-ran a Sweedish Lutheran Church
Family came to pursue dreams, free land, potato famine (?), plague (?), and Great Migration (Purtans from England from 1630’s-40’s) (?)
The first Langworthy came from England in 1640. His name was Andrew. He is my great great great great great great great great great (9) grandfather.
Both sites have a lot of useful information about Andrew; unfortunately very little is actually known about him. (My family also have none of his licenses--marriage, baptism, etc.)
Unknown when he was born (around 1630 and maybe in Devonshire, England), what ship he came on and when
He was first "seen" in Newport, RI in 1652 when he was baptized by Obadiah Holmes
Job is unknown but he lived well
On list of freemen in 1655, married well, served on Newport Grand Jury 1668, and had various lands
November 3, 1658- married Rachel Hubbard (10 kids)
INFORMATION ABOUT THE PLAGUE IN ENGLAND AROUND 1640(which is around the time when Andrew left England; he also could have come because between 1630s-1640 there was a great "migration" of people leaving England to New England, the Puritans)
Abstract Throughout the Middle Ages most of populated Britain suffered sweeping ravages of disease and pestilence; individually and collectively these epidemics were referred to as the plague. Examination of the Leicestershire town of Loughborough's Parish Register 1, reveals valuable statistical data, particularly in respect to burials after 1538. The History and Antiquities of the County of Leicester, Vol III part II, by J Nichols 2, offers an insight into some of the social effects of the plague. Using these and other sources, an attempt to investigate the local myths and legends has been undertaken. Furthermore, other issues, such as what was the Plague and how it did spread, are addressed. Preface The Plague, also known as bubonic plague, pestis or the Black Death, was an acute, severe infection caused by the bacillus Yersina pestis (formerly known as Pasteurella pestis, now named after Yersin who first described it in 1894). This bacillus is primarily an internal parasite of wild rodents, such as rats, mice and squirrels, for whom the resulting illness may be acute, subacute, or chronic. It is carried to man by fleas deserting dying or dead animals, in search of nourishment. It may enter the bloodstream directly as the flea bites the host, or indirectly through contact between fleas' excrement, and scratches or lesions on the skin. Massive human epidemics have occurred. The most infamous was the Black Death of the Middle Ages. More recently, infections have occurred sporadically but have tended to be limited. Modern science has identified two main types of plague; bubonic plague and primary pneumonic plague. Bubonic plague was named after buboes (enlarged lymph nodes) which first become visible during, or shortly after, the fever. This was the most common form of the Plague and the incubation period varied from a few hours to 12 days, (but generally 2 to 5 days). The onset was abrupt and often associated with chills; the temperature rapidly rose to 39.5 to 41 C (103 to 106 F). Occasionally, a primary sore appeared at the bite site, varying from a small spot to a large suppurating ulcer. These often changed in colour from orange to black, or blue or purple, and, of all the different signs of the Plague, these were the easiest 'tokens' of recognition. The sufferer was often restless, delirious, confused and uncoordinated. Most deaths occurred from blood poisoning in 3 to 5 days. Some victims however, took a month or so to die. Until the advent of antibiotics, the mortality rate was generally between 60 and 80%. This form of the disease spread though a community very rapidly, thriving in a humid and warm climate; which provided ideal conditions for fleas to breed and flourish. In Europe, the months between July and October normally nurtured optimum infestation. However, fleas have been known to survive through winter in warm 'ecosystems'. For example, until the Eighteenth Century, the supports of floors and roofs in wooden, or wattle and daub buildings, harboured the nests of black rats. (Brown and grey rats not appearing until the Eighteenth Century). Apart from the bubonic and pneumonic plague, a further disease swept through Europe. It had many names and was known as The Sweat, The Swat, New Acquaintance, Stoupe, or Knave know thy master. It was claimed that it only killed the rich, middle aged - not the young or the old, and that it caused a quick death : "They were dancing in court at nine and dead at eleven", wrote a Poole minister, while Dr Caius, physician to Henry VIII, compared it to "the Plague at Athens, a pestilent contagious fever of one natural day". Dr Caius recorded the signs and symptoms as "... burning heat, sickness, headache, delirium, intense thirst, laboured breathing, erratic pulse, followed by faintness, drowsiness, profuse sweating, sickness of stomach and heart but seldom vomiting". He added "... the symptoms reached their height by the seventh hour after onset, by the ninth delirium set in, and that death often quickly followed... However, if the victim survived the fifteenth hour the symptoms abated, and if they passed the twenty-fourth hour, they usually survived." The Sweat is believed to have arrived in England in 1485, transported from Rouen by mercenaries recruited to help establish Henry Tudor. The first recorded outbreak was at Milford Haven, the port at which Tudor landed his invading force. Other outbreaks were recorded throughout the country in 1508, 1517, and 1551.5 n 1615, a burning fever swept through Leicester. There is little information about this ailment, other than that its appearance coincided with a contagious sickness and the Hot Ague (fever) elsewhere in England and Europe. Unidentified fevers erupted in 1638, 1660 and 1661. Smallpox was prevalent in 1634-5 and goal fever was recorded in Oxford in 1577, York in 1581, Exeter in 1586, Lincoln in 1590 and Hereford in 1636. Small, generally local, outbreaks of Malaria occasionally caused alarm in the marshes of East Anglia. Typhus also appeared periodically, and it has been suggested that influenza, in various forms may have been responsible for the non-specific epidemics. Examination of the aetiology, epidemiology and the signs and symptoms of Haemophilus Influenza and adenoviruses or adenoassociated viruses6 reveal a strong correlation between Dr Caius's reports and these diseases. Although modern medicine may offer a range of what is uncertain is the actual epidemiology of the plague, feasible diagnosis, particularly in respect to transmission during the sixteenth Century. How did the disease pass between small communities and households, and what was the mode of transmission over long distances - between countries, counties and towns? The role of fleas in the transmission of the bubonic plague is fairly certain. However, what is uncertain is the actual relationship between flea, rat and man. Once the diseased rat flea, Xenopsylla cheopis, has left the rat and infected man, can that flea pass from man to man without the intervention of the rat? English epidemiologists, basing their arguments on modern plagues in South Asia, generally claim not. However, French epidemiologists, basing their claims on the results of modern plagues in North Africa and India, propose that the human flea, Pulex irritans, can transmit the disease as it moves between human hosts. The wisdom of concluding that the human flea has played a major role in the transmission of the plague in England has been questioned. There is evidence to support the view that the concentrations of plague mortality in towns were often in isolated pockets, often on the outskirts, not in the centre; suggesting rats, not humans were the vectors of transmission. Furthermore, despite the frequency of multiple cases of plague within single households, it has not been demonstrated that mortality rates were related to the size of the household, as may be expected if the human flea was the culprit.7 It may be prudent to surmise that both forms of transmission were evident, however, not necessarily in equal weighting, or operating together. A further controversy concerns the exact method by which the plague arrived in England. It certainly arrived via the ports, carried on merchant and Naval ships. However, were the infected fleas carried by the rats in the grain or bales of cloth and cotton, or on the backs of the crew, passengers or returning soldiers? Furthermore, how did the disease spread from the ports to the town and country? Via wild rodents in the countryside, by the rats and fleas in transported freight, or by the fleas on their human hosts? Although the evidence is mixed and subject to debate, it is suggested that they all played a role. There is evidence to support that plague was caught from baggage and bales of clothes and cloth, as in Eyam in Derbyshire in 1665. However, there also exists evidence that human transmission alone has been responsible.8 It appears that the spread of the plague across the country was far too rapid to be accounted for by wild rodents in the countryside, and it is human transport which explains its movement along the major trade routes, usually by ship (British port to port), or on main roads and navigable rivers. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume that rodent transmission played a part in local village to village contamination. Possibly, the occasional annual outbreaks of bubonic plague may be explained by the over-wintering of fleas and black rats in major cities, and perhaps on the wild rodents of the countryside.
There is further evidence to suggest that Loughborough was occasionally put into quarantine by local towns. During June 1610, the Rector of Loughborough wrote the following letter to the Mayor of Leicester:19 "Sir, I understand from a neighbour of mine that it is your desire that I should give warning to my neighbours to keep them from coming to your town of Leicester for the time of the Assizes; with their desire I will by God's help accordingly fulfil only I desire to know whether the restraint must be so general as none of the towns for any cause may come hither with certificate as formally they have done. I desire to be informed in law upon an arbitrement which we will put off until some other time if you think that your coming will be offensive to any one. And so thanking you for your care and kindness towards my neighbours in this time of visitation I rest. Your loving friend in Christ assured, John Brown." In 1631, a further outbreak, although not so severe, (and the last major epidemic) caused such concern that the Parson of Loughborough, John Browne (successor and namesake of the John Brown who wrote the 1610 letter), wrote to the Mayor of Leicester : "These are to certify whom it may concern that the shattered town of Loughborough is not so dangerous as by some may be considered; in as much as there are but only three houses visited by the Plague: being all of them small tenements, and being in a back lane or place far remote from our market-place or any common passage, being inhabited by poor people: all attended upon; as well for relief of the visited as for prevention of danger. And there are dead of the sickness as is supposed only eleven p'sons in all men, women and children, in the space of seven weeks since first the infection began."
However, the Mayor of Leicester was not placated, for he issued the following proclamation :
"To the Constable of the Bishopp's Fee in or near Leicester and to his deputies : Forasmuch as we understand that the sickness is growing very dangerous in Loughborough and many of the inhabitants there have of late endeavoured to bring their goods into the town of Leicester, and to settle themselves here to the great endangering of the Corporation, for preventing whereof (so far as by God's assistance wee maye) we have taken order for a watch to be kept daily in several places in and about the town. And here also have given the strict charge that none shall resort to the said town of Loughborough until it please God to stay the said Visitation. This is therefore to command you to cause convenient watch to be daily and constantly kept within your said ward, or Constabulary for preventing of the dangers aforesaid and to give stout charge and warning to all inhabitants within the said Fee not to entertain or harbour any of the inhabitants of Loughborough or their goods, that they forbear coming to the said town, either to the Market or otherwise. Therefore fail not at your peril. Given under our hand the nineteenth Day of May, Anno Domini 1631. Thomas Smithe, Mayor." 20
A student of Elizabethan mortality in England has two important sources of evidence on which to base their research. Prior to 1538 there are probate records and after 1538 there are parish registers. A detailed study of probate records may reveal years of unusually high deaths which may indicate years of epidemic. However, there was a large percentage of society that never made wills, for instance, travellers and the poor. It may be prudent to assume that the non-will-making class were those with the least, and, in common with the poor of any society, this group may have been the most vulnerable to disease. "Wills were generally made by a small and unrepresentative social group - those adults, mostly males, who had property to bequeath." Nevertheless, in the absence of other evidence, both the records of wills that were read, and wills that were registered, remain as an indication as to actual mortality, or concern about mortality. During the 1550s plague years of London, the number of wills written rose to well over twice the average.23 Parish registers were kept after 1538, by law. Each Sunday, the parson and the churchwarden of Loughborough recorded the baptisms, births and burials of the preceding week. However, even the best-kept registers are unlikely to give a complete record of mortality.24 They listed burials in the churchyard, not deaths in the parish, and there is a possibility that the extent of the mortality, particularly during an epidemic, was understated. There are numerous examples of the reluctance's of parishes to contaminate their churchyards with plague corpses, of unregistered burials of plague victims in gardens and fields, and of parochial registration ceasing at the height of the epidemic.25 Therefore, the figures in the recorded tables and graphs should not be taken to imply a certainty and accuracy which the original records do not possess. Likewise, although Elizabethan plague regulations required the priest to record all the deaths from the plague by writing a p in the Register against the names26, it may be worth considering the diagnostic skills of a priest who was probably examining the body in poor light. In 1578, government imposed stringent restrictions on attendance at funerals. These prescribed the burial of the dead only at dusk, and suggested that ministers officiating should ".. be distant from the danger of infection of the person dead, or of the company that shall bring the corpse to the grave." 27 Thus, ministerial 'plague labelling' should be viewed with caution. The last reported plague in Loughborough ended in 1648, Nichols reported28 that, "From July 20, 1647, to March 25, 1648, died of the Plague, 83. No more of the plague in 1648." Widespread death in the form of the plague never returned to England once the epidemic beginning in London in 1665 had run its course. It remains a mystery exactly why the plagues ended. However, a tentative hypothesis may include the introduction of effective quarantine measures. Improvements in the environment may also have accelerated the demise of the plagues; "... on the 4th day of June 1622 there was a grievous fire in this town (Loughborough), which burnt down to the ground many houses."29 Fire has remained an extremely efficient and global destroyer of disease. The destruction of wooden, rat-infested dwellings and their subsequent replacement with brick buildings, that separated people from the rats, may have also been a contributory factor. Slack proffers,30 that in 1652 the London bricklayers pointed out that the substitution of brick for timber would reduce the plague.
Local legend has it that Dead Lane was named after the burial plot that was situated in that area for the victims of the 16th Century plagues. As suggested earlier, the name Le Dede Lane has, in fact, been traced to the reign of Edward II. Perhaps it refers to a burial spot for victims of the 12th Century Black Death? Notwithstanding, there are one or two clues as to why contemporary opinion has dated it much later. First, when the foundations of the Shakespeare Street school were being dug in the early 19th Century, old skeletons were discovered. However, records indicate that on, or near this site, was the 14th Century burial site for the nearby hospital of St John. 31 Second, 16th Century law required that the corpses of the victims of the plague be carried to their burial place, by a route other than a busy thoroughfare. To get to the Churchyard, or other Northern burial spot, the eponymously named 'Dead Lane' was ideally situated.
I concur with Slack's conclusion, that the Plague, in the years covered, had became a reminder of the transience of all aspects of life. It destroyed life, wealth and many towns throughout England, and in common with other disasters, like famine or war it undermined any assurance we might normally find in family, friends, business and property, or even in government and nation. At the heart of the conflict between disease and society lay the sufferings and struggles of ordinary men, women and children. The student of history may trace and analyse the available data, evidence and statistics, but can only guess at the unrecorded private feelings of the inarticulate victims.
Bibliography: "Andrew Langworthy, (ca 1630)". (c) May 25, 2003. date visited May 10, 2009. http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~hal/Langworthy/ps01/ps01_050.html. (good info that is just focused about Andrew and not so much about his family).
Jessiman, Ian. "A general study of the Plague in England 1539-1640 with a specific reference to Loughborough". date visited May 8, 2009. http://www.loughborough.co.uk/plague/index.htm. (very indepth info of the plague in england around the time when Andrew would've come. maybe is the reason why he left) Langworthy, Maria. Interview over the phone and email. April and may 2009. (gave a lot of good useful info about Andrew and my family tree, a very very knowledgeable source)
"What do we know about Andrew and Rachel and their children?". (c) Feb 2008. date visited May 11, 2009. http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~hal/Langworthy/first.html (really good info, not much because a lot is unknown about Andrew)
Grama's (mom side) gf Sweedish, Larsen gm French ,DeCair
Grama's (dad side) gf Irish, Langworthy gm German, Mapletoff
Grama’s great grandfaterh- 1640 (Langworthy)
-came from England
-then to NY
-moved throught Penn.
-slowly to MI
Great Grama Ruth’s mom (DeCair married Larsen)- French (to Canada to Big Rapids)
-about end of 17th Century (1680’s ish)
-to MI in 1850
Great Grama Ruth’s dad (Larsen)- Denmark in 1800’s
-Denmark to NY then MI
-ran a Sweedish Lutheran Church
Family came to pursue dreams, free land, potato famine (?), plague (?), and Great Migration (Purtans from England from 1630’s-40’s) (?)
The first Langworthy came from England in 1640. His name was Andrew. He is my great great great great great great great great great (9) grandfather.
http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~hal/Langworthy/ps01/ps01_050.html
http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~hal/Langworthy/first.html
Both sites have a lot of useful information about Andrew; unfortunately very little is actually known about him. (My family also have none of his licenses--marriage, baptism, etc.)
http://www.loughborough.co.uk/plague/index.htm
INFORMATION ABOUT THE PLAGUE IN ENGLAND AROUND 1640 (which is around the time when Andrew left England; he also could have come because between 1630s-1640 there was a great "migration" of people leaving England to New England, the Puritans)
Abstract
Throughout the Middle Ages most of populated Britain suffered sweeping ravages of disease and pestilence; individually and collectively these epidemics were referred to as the plague. Examination of the Leicestershire town of Loughborough's Parish Register 1, reveals valuable statistical data, particularly in respect to burials after 1538. The History and Antiquities of the County of Leicester, Vol III part II, by J Nichols 2, offers an insight into some of the social effects of the plague. Using these and other sources, an attempt to investigate the local myths and legends has been undertaken. Furthermore, other issues, such as what was the Plague and how it did spread, are addressed.
Preface
The Plague, also known as bubonic plague, pestis or the Black Death, was an acute, severe infection caused by the bacillus Yersina pestis (formerly known as Pasteurella pestis, now named after Yersin who first described it in 1894). This bacillus is primarily an internal parasite of wild rodents, such as rats, mice and squirrels, for whom the resulting illness may be acute, subacute, or chronic. It is carried to man by fleas deserting dying or dead animals, in search of nourishment. It may enter the bloodstream directly as the flea bites the host, or indirectly through contact between fleas' excrement, and scratches or lesions on the skin. Massive human epidemics have occurred. The most infamous was the Black Death of the Middle Ages. More recently, infections have occurred sporadically but have tended to be limited.
Modern science has identified two main types of plague; bubonic plague and primary pneumonic plague. Bubonic plague was named after buboes (enlarged lymph nodes) which first become visible during, or shortly after, the fever. This was the most common form of the Plague and the incubation period varied from a few hours to 12 days, (but generally 2 to 5 days). The onset was abrupt and often associated with chills; the temperature rapidly rose to 39.5 to 41 C (103 to 106 F). Occasionally, a primary sore appeared at the bite site, varying from a small spot to a large suppurating ulcer. These often changed in colour from orange to black, or blue or purple, and, of all the different signs of the Plague, these were the easiest 'tokens' of recognition. The sufferer was often restless, delirious, confused and uncoordinated. Most deaths occurred from blood poisoning in 3 to 5 days. Some victims however, took a month or so to die. Until the advent of antibiotics, the mortality rate was generally between 60 and 80%. This form of the disease spread though a community very rapidly, thriving in a humid and warm climate; which provided ideal conditions for fleas to breed and flourish. In Europe, the months between July and October normally nurtured optimum infestation. However, fleas have been known to survive through winter in warm 'ecosystems'. For example, until the Eighteenth Century, the supports of floors and roofs in wooden, or wattle and daub buildings, harboured the nests of black rats. (Brown and grey rats not appearing until the Eighteenth Century).
Apart from the bubonic and pneumonic plague, a further disease swept through Europe. It had many names and was known as The Sweat, The Swat, New Acquaintance, Stoupe, or Knave know thy master. It was claimed that it only killed the rich, middle aged - not the young or the old, and that it caused a quick death : "They were dancing in court at nine and dead at eleven", wrote a Poole minister, while Dr Caius, physician to Henry VIII, compared it to "the Plague at Athens, a pestilent contagious fever of one natural day". Dr Caius recorded the signs and symptoms as "... burning heat, sickness, headache, delirium, intense thirst, laboured breathing, erratic pulse, followed by faintness, drowsiness, profuse sweating, sickness of stomach and heart but seldom vomiting". He added "... the symptoms reached their height by the seventh hour after onset, by the ninth delirium set in, and that death often quickly followed... However, if the victim survived the fifteenth hour the symptoms abated, and if they passed the twenty-fourth hour, they usually survived." The Sweat is believed to have arrived in England in 1485, transported from Rouen by mercenaries recruited to help establish Henry Tudor. The first recorded outbreak was at Milford Haven, the port at which Tudor landed his invading force. Other outbreaks were recorded throughout the country in 1508, 1517, and 1551.5
n 1615, a burning fever swept through Leicester. There is little information about this ailment, other than that its appearance coincided with a contagious sickness and the Hot Ague (fever) elsewhere in England and Europe. Unidentified fevers erupted in 1638, 1660 and 1661. Smallpox was prevalent in 1634-5 and goal fever was recorded in Oxford in 1577, York in 1581, Exeter in 1586, Lincoln in 1590 and Hereford in 1636. Small, generally local, outbreaks of Malaria occasionally caused alarm in the marshes of East Anglia. Typhus also appeared periodically, and it has been suggested that influenza, in various forms may have been responsible for the non-specific epidemics. Examination of the aetiology, epidemiology and the signs and symptoms of Haemophilus Influenza and adenoviruses or adenoassociated viruses6 reveal a strong correlation between Dr Caius's reports and these diseases. Although modern medicine may offer a range of what is uncertain is the actual epidemiology of the plague, feasible diagnosis, particularly in respect to transmission during the sixteenth Century. How did the disease pass between small communities and households, and what was the mode of transmission over long distances - between countries, counties and towns?
The role of fleas in the transmission of the bubonic plague is fairly certain. However, what is uncertain is the actual relationship between flea, rat and man. Once the diseased rat flea, Xenopsylla cheopis, has left the rat and infected man, can that flea pass from man to man without the intervention of the rat? English epidemiologists, basing their arguments on modern plagues in South Asia, generally claim not. However, French epidemiologists, basing their claims on the results of modern plagues in North Africa and India, propose that the human flea, Pulex irritans, can transmit the disease as it moves between human hosts. The wisdom of concluding that the human flea has played a major role in the transmission of the plague in England has been questioned. There is evidence to support the view that the concentrations of plague mortality in towns were often in isolated pockets, often on the outskirts, not in the centre; suggesting rats, not humans were the vectors of transmission. Furthermore, despite the frequency of multiple cases of plague within single households, it has not been demonstrated that mortality rates were related to the size of the household, as may be expected if the human flea was the culprit.7 It may be prudent to surmise that both forms of transmission were evident, however, not necessarily in equal weighting, or operating together.
A further controversy concerns the exact method by which the plague arrived in England. It certainly arrived via the ports, carried on merchant and Naval ships. However, were the infected fleas carried by the rats in the grain or bales of cloth and cotton, or on the backs of the crew, passengers or returning soldiers? Furthermore, how did the disease spread from the ports to the town and country? Via wild rodents in the countryside, by the rats and fleas in transported freight, or by the fleas on their human hosts?
Although the evidence is mixed and subject to debate, it is suggested that they all played a role. There is evidence to support that plague was caught from baggage and bales of clothes and cloth, as in Eyam in Derbyshire in 1665. However, there also exists evidence that human transmission alone has been responsible.8 It appears that the spread of the plague across the country was far too rapid to be accounted for by wild rodents in the countryside, and it is human transport which explains its movement along the major trade routes, usually by ship (British port to port), or on main roads and navigable rivers. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume that rodent transmission played a part in local village to village contamination. Possibly, the occasional annual outbreaks of bubonic plague may be explained by the over-wintering of fleas and black rats in major cities, and perhaps on the wild rodents of the countryside.
There is further evidence to suggest that Loughborough was occasionally put into quarantine by local towns. During June 1610, the Rector of Loughborough wrote the following letter to the Mayor of Leicester:19
"Sir, I understand from a neighbour of mine that it is your desire that I should give warning to my neighbours to keep them from coming to your town of Leicester for the time of the Assizes; with their desire I will by God's help accordingly fulfil only I desire to know whether the restraint must be so general as none of the towns for any cause may come hither with certificate as formally they have done. I desire to be informed in law upon an arbitrement which we will put off until some other time if you think that your coming will be offensive to any one. And so thanking you for your care and kindness towards my neighbours in this time of visitation I rest. Your loving friend in Christ assured, John Brown."
In 1631, a further outbreak, although not so severe, (and the last major epidemic) caused such concern that the Parson of Loughborough, John Browne (successor and namesake of the John Brown who wrote the 1610 letter), wrote to the Mayor of Leicester :
"These are to certify whom it may concern that the shattered town of Loughborough is not so dangerous as by some may be considered; in as much as there are but only three houses visited by the Plague: being all of them small tenements, and being in a back lane or place far remote from our market-place or any common passage, being inhabited by poor people: all attended upon; as well for relief of the visited as for prevention of danger. And there are dead of the sickness as is supposed only eleven p'sons in all men, women and children, in the space of seven weeks since first the infection began."
However, the Mayor of Leicester was not placated, for he issued the following proclamation :
"To the Constable of the Bishopp's Fee in or near Leicester and to his deputies : Forasmuch as we understand that the sickness is growing very dangerous in Loughborough and many of the inhabitants there have of late endeavoured to bring their goods into the town of Leicester, and to settle themselves here to the great endangering of the Corporation, for preventing whereof (so far as by God's assistance wee maye) we have taken order for a watch to be kept daily in several places in and about the town. And here also have given the strict charge that none shall resort to the said town of Loughborough until it please God to stay the said Visitation. This is therefore to command you to cause convenient watch to be daily and constantly kept within your said ward, or Constabulary for preventing of the dangers aforesaid and to give stout charge and warning to all inhabitants within the said Fee not to entertain or harbour any of the inhabitants of Loughborough or their goods, that they forbear coming to the said town, either to the Market or otherwise. Therefore fail not at your peril. Given under our hand the nineteenth Day of May, Anno Domini 1631. Thomas Smithe, Mayor." 20
A student of Elizabethan mortality in England has two important sources of evidence on which to base their research. Prior to 1538 there are probate records and after 1538 there are parish registers. A detailed study of probate records may reveal years of unusually high deaths which may indicate years of epidemic. However, there was a large percentage of society that never made wills, for instance, travellers and the poor. It may be prudent to assume that the non-will-making class were those with the least, and, in common with the poor of any society, this group may have been the most vulnerable to disease. "Wills were generally made by a small and unrepresentative social group - those adults, mostly males, who had property to bequeath."
Nevertheless, in the absence of other evidence, both the records of wills that were read, and wills that were registered, remain as an indication as to actual mortality, or concern about mortality. During the 1550s plague years of London, the number of wills written rose to well over twice the average.23
Parish registers were kept after 1538, by law. Each Sunday, the parson and the churchwarden of Loughborough recorded the baptisms, births and burials of the preceding week. However, even the best-kept registers are unlikely to give a complete record of mortality.24 They listed burials in the churchyard, not deaths in the parish, and there is a possibility that the extent of the mortality, particularly during an epidemic, was understated. There are numerous examples of the reluctance's of parishes to contaminate their churchyards with plague corpses, of unregistered burials of plague victims in gardens and fields, and of parochial registration ceasing at the height of the epidemic.25
Therefore, the figures in the recorded tables and graphs should not be taken to imply a certainty and accuracy which the original records do not possess. Likewise, although Elizabethan plague regulations required the priest to record all the deaths from the plague by writing a p in the Register against the names26, it may be worth considering the diagnostic skills of a priest who was probably examining the body in poor light. In 1578, government imposed stringent restrictions on attendance at funerals. These prescribed the burial of the dead only at dusk, and suggested that ministers officiating should ".. be distant from the danger of infection of the person dead, or of the company that shall bring the corpse to the grave." 27 Thus, ministerial 'plague labelling' should be viewed with caution.
The last reported plague in Loughborough ended in 1648, Nichols reported28 that, "From July 20, 1647, to March 25, 1648, died of the Plague, 83. No more of the plague in 1648." Widespread death in the form of the plague never returned to England once the epidemic beginning in London in 1665 had run its course. It remains a mystery exactly why the plagues ended. However, a tentative hypothesis may include the introduction of effective quarantine measures. Improvements in the environment may also have accelerated the demise of the plagues; "... on the 4th day of June 1622 there was a grievous fire in this town (Loughborough), which burnt down to the ground many houses."29 Fire has remained an extremely efficient and global destroyer of disease. The destruction of wooden, rat-infested dwellings and their subsequent replacement with brick buildings, that separated people from the rats, may have also been a contributory factor. Slack proffers,30 that in 1652 the London bricklayers pointed out that the substitution of brick for timber would reduce the plague.
Local legend has it that Dead Lane was named after the burial plot that was situated in that area for the victims of the 16th Century plagues. As suggested earlier, the name Le Dede Lane has, in fact, been traced to the reign of Edward II. Perhaps it refers to a burial spot for victims of the 12th Century Black Death? Notwithstanding, there are one or two clues as to why contemporary opinion has dated it much later. First, when the foundations of the Shakespeare Street school were being dug in the early 19th Century, old skeletons were discovered. However, records indicate that on, or near this site, was the 14th Century burial site for the nearby hospital of St John. 31
I concur with Slack's conclusion, that the Plague, in the years covered, had became a reminder of the transience of all aspects of life. It destroyed life, wealth and many towns throughout England, and in common with other disasters, like famine or war it undermined any assurance we might normally find in family, friends, business and property, or even in government and nation. At the heart of the conflict between disease and society lay the sufferings and struggles of ordinary men, women and children. The student of history may trace and analyse the available data, evidence and statistics, but can only guess at the unrecorded private feelings of the inarticulate victims.
Bibliography:
"Andrew Langworthy, (ca 1630)". (c) May 25, 2003. date visited May 10, 2009. http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~hal/Langworthy/ps01/ps01_050.html. (good info that is just focused about Andrew and not so much about his family).
Jessiman, Ian. "A general study of the Plague in England 1539-1640 with a specific reference to Loughborough". date visited May 8, 2009. http://www.loughborough.co.uk/plague/index.htm. (very indepth info of the plague in england around the time when Andrew would've come. maybe is the reason why he left)
Langworthy, Maria. Interview over the phone and email. April and may 2009. (gave a lot of good useful info about Andrew and my family tree, a very very knowledgeable source)
"What do we know about Andrew and Rachel and their children?". (c) Feb 2008. date visited May 11, 2009. http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~hal/Langworthy/first.html (really good info, not much because a lot is unknown about Andrew)